Was the Supreme Court right to rule that the Affordable Care Act violated the religio
1024
No - The ruling allows bosses to impose their religious beliefs on their employees. Besides, the Constitution grants religious freedom to individuals, not corporations.
483
Yes - The religious beliefs of company owners take precedence over their employees' right to have access to birth control.
Should religious family-owned companies be required to cover contraceptives under their insurance plans? The high court says no.
I'm curious how you nurses feel about this? Please take a second to vote in our quick poll.
This is a highly political topic, I'd rather not turn this into a hot argumentative subject, so please keep your comments civil :) But please feel free to comment. Thanks
In a 5-4 decision Monday, the Supreme Court allowed a key exemption to the health law's contraception coverage requirements when it ruled that closely held for-profit businesses could assert a religious objection to the Obama administration's regulations. What does it mean? Here are some questions and answers about the case.What did the court's ruling do?
The court's majority said that the for-profit companies that filed suit-Hobby Lobby Stores, a nationwide chain of 500 arts and crafts stores, and Conestoga Wood Specialties, a maker of custom cabinets-didn't have to offer female employeesall Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptivesas part of a package of preventive services that must be covered without copays or deductibles under the law. The companies had argued that several types of contraceptivesviolate their owners' religious beliefs. The ruling also covers a Hobby Lobby subsidiary, the Mardel Christian bookstores.
Specializes in Med/Surg, Peds, Geriatrics, Home Health.
Shouldn't employers be just as to blame? After all, they're the ones hiring women who have sex, if they disagree with that then why hire them in the first place?
What????? Who says anyone is against people having sex??? There are laws about hiring people without prejudice; and then there is an amendment that allows for religious freedom.... so why is one right and one wrong? They are both right. Nobody gets to step on my religious freedom, that is my right. And you have the right to work without regard to your race, ethnicity, etc; just as you have the right to move along and find something else where you agree with your employer and/or you like what they have to offer you. Nobody is making anybody stay at a company they don't want to be at, that's another right.... People need to stop crapping all over the US Constitution.
Specializes in Med/Surg, Peds, Geriatrics, Home Health.
I didn't come up with that conclusion, the supreme court did. The court's ruling, which you seem to agree with, was that employers don't need to be required to provide contraception coverage because the government can just provide contraception coverage directly, so my question is if you actually agree with that.
I already stated I agree with the decision! I your birth control is NOT my responsibility. Now do I agree that government should or can just provide contraception coverage directly? NO. Why do I say no? Because my tax dollars should not be funding your contraception either. It is one thing to disagree with me, as I disagree with you; but why do you keep asking me the same question in different ways?
I already stated I agree with the decision! I your birth control is NOT my responsibility. Now do I agree that government should or can just provide contraception coverage directly? NO. Why do I say no? Because my tax dollars should not be funding your contraception either. It is one thing to disagree with me, as I disagree with you; but why do you keep asking me the same question in different ways?
I think you've misunderstood what the decision actually was. The court didn't rule that people or businesses can't be required by the government to contribute to plans that cover contraception, they ruled that the "less burdensome" option should be used when alternatives are available, one if these alternatives that the court mentioned specifically was having the government (taxpayers) either provide coverage to the affected employees, or to just directly reimburse for their contraception.
Another option would be to require employers to give the funds they would pay towards insurance (60% of the plan value) directly to employees who would then redirect those funds directly to an insurer. Would that solve the problem?
Specializes in Med/Surg, Peds, Geriatrics, Home Health.
I think you've misunderstood what the decision actually was. The court didn't rule that people or businesses can't be required by the government to contribute to plans that cover contraception, they ruled that the "less burdensome" option should be used when alternatives are available, one if these alternatives that the court mentioned specifically was having the government (taxpayers) either provide coverage to the affected employees, or to just directly reimburse for their contraception.
Another option would be to require employers to give the funds they would pay towards insurance (60% of the plan value) directly to employees who would then redirect those funds directly to an insurer. Would that solve the problem?
This doesn't stop women from being able to get contraception. That's hyperbole.
I'm in favor of what the Supreme Court did here.
But it DOES prevent them from choosing a very effective form of birth control. The IUD's that they object to have a very low failure rate compared to the approved birth control options.
The United States has already proven that law can supersede religious views. Polygamy has been outlawed. As had human and animal sacrifice. No one (with a few exceptions) has complained about that. For profit companies like hobby lobby may be owned by religious personnel but those companies are not exempt from tax laws, local state and federal laws and do not hold religious not for profit status. They are not churches and are not run by churches. And my catholic institution run hospital won't cover oral contraceptives or fertility treatments. While they may have the law protecting this, they now impose their beliefs on me.
I respect the position of those that disagree with me. But I still do not agree with it.
Just to bring you up to date; if you are referring to the polygamy laws in Utah a federal judge overturned them last year or at least recently. His ruling was that the state did not have the right to prevent persons from marrying more than one person. It was this ruling that gave those supporting gay marriage in Utah hope, and they were correct in that the same federal courts overturned that state's anti-SSM constitutional amendment. Both cases are going to end up in the SCOTUS most likely as Utah isn't backing down on either front.
Thus far IIRC no other state has had a challenge to laws baring more than one spouse.
I already stated I agree with the decision! I your birth control is NOT my responsibility. Now do I agree that government should or can just provide contraception coverage directly? NO. Why do I say no? Because my tax dollars should not be funding your contraception either. It is one thing to disagree with me, as I disagree with you; but why do you keep asking me the same question in different ways?
But if I am paying for a comprehensive health care policy, why is it that you would care what it covers? Not to mention any health care company who decides that just say 4502 people are going to not have certain forms of birth control paid for, however, the remianing lets just say 252,975 people are. One could choose to have the 4502 employees pay most all of their premiums....ah, but wait, there is an Obamacare rule for that, no can do. An individual's constitutional rights are just as valid as an employers.
Additionally, we ALL pay for government health insurance coverage. We all pay into Medicare, and our tax dollars are what pays for welfare run health insurance. Which has no such restrictions.
That is just what these employees need--multiple children that are ooops in nature as opposed to anything else. I feel for the eventual kids in this.
Ok, am seeing the word "corporation" mentioned here in more than one post. The SC ruling only applied to closely held/family enterprises. There you have an actual family or whatever that is closely involved with running things. IBM, Microsoft, South West Airlines, etc... are all large publically traded companies and thus cannot easily go down this same route.
As for the balance of this debate Obama and those crafting ACA got themselves into trouble on some fronts of the contraception debate because in an attempt to side step some anger gave exemptions to certain religious and those associated with businesses such as hospitals owned or associated with the Catholic Church. This didn't work as there are several cases working their way through the federal courts regarding those exemptions and mandates versus the Catholic Church and other religious groups.
Look this whole mess is coming about because Obamacare is built upon the premise of continuing by various methods what has gone on before; employer provided healthcare coverage. ACA would crash and burn if employers ceased in any great number to provide health insurance and persons flocked to the state exchanges.
So instead of single payer where Obama and the Democrats/left could have mandated all sorts of healthcare benefits from birth control to infertility but it paid for via tax dollars, we have a system that uses various carrots and sticks to force employers to do what the government wishes. It should come as no surprise to anyone that not 100% of the population is down with going along.
Know we are supposed to be living in modern times with all sorts of equality and increasing secularism but this country was founded upon religious freedom. If a devout family (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, whatever) starts a company or business they do have certain fundamental rights.
Page 2: Under [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act], a Government action that imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise must serve a compelling government interest, and we assume that the HHS regulations satisfy this requirement. But in order for the HHS mandate to be sustained, it must also constitute the least restrictive means of serving that interest, and the mandate plainly fails that test. There are other ways Congress or HHS could equally insure that every woman has cost-free access to the particular contraceptives at issue here and, indeed, all FDA-approved contraceptives.The government has already, he continues, proven that it can craft a less-restrictive way of providing contraceptives:
Page 3: In fact, HHS has already devised and implemented a system that seeks to respect the religious liberty of religious nonprofit corporations while ensuring that the employees of these entities have precisely the same access to all FDA-approved contraceptives as employees of companies whose owners have no religious objections to providing such coverage. The employees of these religious nonprofit corporations still have access to insurance coverage without cost sharing for all FDA-approved contraceptives; and according to HHS, this system imposes no net economic burden on the insurance companies that are required to provide or secure the coverage.
In other words, the government can still require that employers contribute to contraception coverage, but only if the funds go through various processes between the religious employer's contribution and the act of paying for the contraception. The majority's opinion was that the way to make it legal to require employers to pay for contraception is to have the government cover the cost, which it does through adjustments to the fees insurers pay to utilize the exchanges, fees they recoup from taxpayers (Including Hobby Lobby and everyone else).
Basically, if it goes through enough steps it's harder to tell where the money came from and who it went to. In the crime world, this is called "money laundering". The thing is that no matter how much you launder money, it doesn't change where it came from or where it went, it makes it less transparent, so I don't really see how those advocate for a employers right to avoid any contribution to contraception could see this as a good thing.
And my catholic institution run hospital won't cover oral contraceptives or fertility treatments. While they may have the law protecting this, they now impose their beliefs on me.
QUOTE]
Unless you are being forced to work at a Catholic hospital, no one is forcing any beliefs on you. They have policies consistant with their faith, and you are free to seek employment elsewhere if this does not suit you.
They DO pay for 16 types of birh control... And Hobby Lobby has been paying for those before the ACA was in place. If is just the 4 which questionably cause the fetus to abort, or not implant that they object too.... I think that the supreme court up held the first amendment.. Yahoo... This is a win for freedom! Specifically religious freedom.
raisincookie
42 Posts
That is true, (although JW's don't involve themselves in politics) I see the point they were trying to make,the door is open for any claim.